Capitol Retort: Seven and out; high schoolers win; person of the year

Question 1: We have gone through our seventh and final special legislative session of 2020. Some were more productive than others, but they did bring us some police reform and a bonding bill (plus a couple of fired commissioners). What did 2020 teach us about whether the Legislature should be a year-round affair?

Athena Hollins, attorney, DFL House member-elect: I think there are benefits to having people staying engaged in the Legislature all year long. And by “people,” I mean not just the legislators, but also the public in general. I think that there is there’s a benefit to thinking about these things on a more consistent basis. I don’t foresee us going year-round at any particular point, but I also think that being year-round or considering this job full time, there’s an equity benefit to it. Because when you’re looking at the Legislature and how diverse it is, we could certainly do more if it was a full-time job and paid like a full-time job.

Dennis Smith, attorney, former GOP House member: 2020 taught us that the Legislature for sure does not need to be year-round in session. But we need to be more efficient when we meet. When you look at some of the special sessions we’ve had, they have been just to approve the governor’s the special emergency powers. That seems like a colossal waste of legislators’ time and taxpayer money.

Melisa Lopez Franzen, attorney, DFL state senator: That’s a great question. I have always advocated that it should be. Not because of a global pandemic but because there is plenty of work that happens throughout the year in state government. In my estimation, the Legislature is like the board of a corporation and we must watch everything that’s happening. Especially after you adjourn, you want to follow up on the bills that you passed to make sure that they’re implemented accordingly. So I’m a fan of all-year-round—but with fewer people and maybe a full-time paycheck because of the work that is required.

Pat Garofalo, former GOP House Job Growth & Energy Affordability committee chair: [Chuckles.] It tells me that Minnesotans would be better off drinking paint than having a full-time Legislature. Our system of government in Minnesota is not set up for full-time politicians. It is set up for a part-time commitment that, when we complete our obligations, allows us to go back to our real lives. It has completely validated that there’s no reason for Minnesota to have a 100% full-time political class.

Brett Corson, Fillmore County Attorney: As important and complicated as many of these issues are and have been, especially this year, I think it shows us that the Legislature should be in session more than they are. Whether it should be full time, I don’t know. But it certainly shows us, at least from my impression and my belief, that it would really be helpful if they were able to be there more.

Question 2: Some Minnesota high schoolers won a Court of Appeals case that gained them the right to access COVID-19 relief unemployment through the CARES Act. But a 1939 state law continues to keep them disqualified from regular unemployment benefits. Can you think of a good reason why that should be?

Hollins: No, I cannot. If you’re working and you’re in high school, then you should have access to unemployment. That’s just the reality.

Smith: I would need to look at the law more closely in order to give a more thorough answer. But my initial thought is that high schoolers mostly—perhaps all the time—are working jobs not as a primary source of income for themselves or for their family, but as supplemental. And it would become burdensome to the businesses from an administrative and financial standpoint if unemployment benefits could be used for high schoolers that are in transition a lot.

Franzen: It should not be. I think it’s archaic. And as we have seen from this pandemic, there are so many family members who are part of the workforce, including younger employees, who should be able to qualify and benefit from of the program that employers pay into. So I think we should fix that law.

Garofalo: I’d have to research the statute to find out more. But it does sound inconsistent with how we treat workers in other areas.

Corson: Is there that need? Every time we open up a resource to a broader pool, our ability to provide that resource may be somewhat compromised for the people who really need it. Generally, I would say that those high schoolers should be part-timers, which I think falls under a number of exceptions. Unemployment is just not a limitless pool, because the taxpayers have to pay for it. And if we’re going to try and prioritize, it really should be aimed at those adults who are working.

Question 3: Time magazine has, somewhat oddly, named president-elect Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris its “person of the year.” Here is your chance to correct this two-headed anomaly. Who is your person of the year for 2020?

Hollins: I guess my person of the year would probably by Stacy Abrams. I have great respect for somebody who doesn’t win [the 2018 Georgia governor’s race] and then bounces back and says I’m going to make sure that there’s equity in our system. She has registered I don’t know how many hundreds of thousands of Georgians to vote and worked with her nonprofit [Fair Fight] to make sure that we are working to combat voter suppression. I just think that’s the most American thing you can do.

Smith: If I had to choose one person, then I would go with President-elect Joe Biden. He is a good choice, because this was a very important election and we had record turnout and President-elect Biden won that race. That alone would qualify you for Time magazine person of the year. But also, we’re at an important time in our country where, between the COVID virus and race relations, he represents hope to the majority of Americans who voted to try to bring our country back together. I’m hopeful for that as well.

Franzen: I like [immunologist and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony] Fauci, the guardian. I like Fauci, because we’ve realized that we rely on science more than a lot of people want to admit.

Garofalo: I would pick the health care workers of the United States of America, who have saved countless lives with their commitments and sacrifices this year. I don’t think people realize how much worse 2020 would be if we didn’t have these committed individuals saving lives every day.

Corson: In the past, Time has done kind of more of a generic thing where they’ve said like the American soldier or something like that. My response would be Joe Citizen—the normal American citizen. Because we’ve really rolled with a lot of things this year. You start with COVID, and then you’ve got the allegations and arguments about racial disparity and how we’ve dealt with that. And then you’re dealing with the political bickering that’s gone on incessantly. And we’re still doing our jobs. Despite a lot of these challenges—some of them self-made—I think people have really done a good job of functioning and still making this country function pretty well.